Alamelu v. Secretary To Govt.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.11.2015
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.S.RAVI H.C.P(MD)No.1278 of 2015 Alamelu : Petitioner Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Dindigul District.
: Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records relating to the detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, vide detention order passed in Detention Order No.52 of 2015, dated 30.06.2015, on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son T.Nandhagopal, S/o.Thimmaiyan, aged about 27 years, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.Anandkumar For Respondents : Mr.A.Ramar, Additional Public Prosecutor.
O R D E R
*********** [Order of the Court was made by V.S.RAVI,J] The petitioner is the mother of the detenu - T.Nandhagopal, S/o.Thimmaiyan, aged about 27 years. He has been detained, as per the order of the second respondent, dated 30.06.2015, under Section 2(f) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as "Goonda". Challenging the same, she has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition.
2.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. We have also perused the records carefully.
3.Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner would
mainly focus his argument on the ground that there is violation of procedural safeguards, which are guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel would submit that the representation made by the petitioner was not considered on time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay. The learned counsel has relied on few Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Based on the same, the learned counsel would plead for setting aside the detention order.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, oppose this Habeas Corpus Petition. He would submit that though there was delay in considering the representation, on that score, the impugned detention order need not be interfered with, as, on account of the said delay, no prejudice has been caused to the detenu and thus, there is no violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.
5. We have considered the above submissions.
6. In this case, the Detention Order was passed on 30.06.2015. As against the same, the petitioner made a representation dated Nil, which was received on 10.08.2015. The remarks were called for by the Government from the Detaining Authority on 10.08.2015. The remarks were received on 25.08.2015. Thereafter, the Government considered the issue and passed the order rejecting the representation on 27.08.2015. It is the contention of the petitioner that there was delay of eleven days in submitting the remarks by the Detaining Authority.
7. Now, the question is as to whether on that score, the impugned order can be quashed.
8. In Rekha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, [2011 (5) SCC 244], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the right to life and liberty of a person is protected, under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the procedural safeguards are required to be zealously watched and enforced by the Courts of law and their rigour cannot be allowed to be diluted on the basis of the nature of the alleged activities of the detenu.
9. In Sumaiya Vs. The Secretary to Government, [2007 (2) MWN (Cr.) 145], a Division Bench of this Court has held that the unexplained delay of three days in disposal of the representation made on behalf of the detenu would be sufficient to set aside the detention order.
10. In Tara Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, [1980
(2) SCC 321], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that any inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the Government in considering the representation renders the detention illegal. This dictum has been followed in several Judgments consistently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court.
11. Applying the said dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if we look into the facts of the present case, undoubtedly, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay of eleven working days and therefore, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed.
12. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and this Court sets aside the Order of Detention dated 30.06.2015, made in Detention Order No.52 of 2015, by the second respondent and directs the release of the detenu, by name T.Nandhagopal, S/o.Thimmaiyan, aged about 27 years, forthwith, if his continued custody is not authorised in specific cases or by any other detention order.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(C.O) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Dindigul District.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison,Madurai (In duplicate to communicate the detenu) 4.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public(Law and Order )Department, Fort Saint George, Chennai-9 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+One cc to Mr.J.Anandkumar, Advocate, SR.No.68267 NB RL/PM/8c-3/12/2015 Order Made in H.C.P(MD)No.1278 of 2015 Dated: 30.11.2015